EA Finland ran an intensive weekend course during spring 2025 introducing EA concepts to 20 participants across 3 Finnish cities. The format proved more accessible than our traditional 5-week program, with strong engagement metrics and opportunity for scaling up.
The crash course was developed as an alternative to our traditional Intro Program, targeting busy people who find it hard to commit to 5 weeks of weekly sessions. We modeled it after EA Bergen's weekend course, focusing on sparking curiosity and enthusiasm rather than comprehensive coverage of every topic.
The content was loosely based on major topics from the Intro Program, covering core concepts and cause areas without getting bogged down in thorough analysis. The course covered six 1-hour workhops. Since presentations are less information dense than texts, we prioritized engagement over exhaustive detail.
Saturday:
Sunday:
We got a fair number of compliments on the pacing, with people praising the timing of the breaks.
In the introduction, we covered discussion guidelines, had an introduction round, and presented what and why EA.
Workshop 1: The cost-effectiveness workshop underlined the vast difference between an average charity and an exceptional one, used Cassandra Xia's game to explain expected value, and included group exercises. We mainly used global health and development as examples since they rely on more intuitive utilitarian calculations.
Workshop 2: The rationality session introduced participants to rationality and cognitive biases. Participants commented that they were surprised to see their cognitive biases in action, and the conversations were especially lively.
Workshop 3: The moral circle presentation built upon rational thinking foundations to challenge moral beliefs, using animal welfare as a clear example of moral progress through rational contemplation.
Workshop 4: The ITN workshop included a presentation about the framework and what causes 80 000 hours has ranked as most pressing. Then the participants had a chance to assess a cause of their own and to compare it to the mainstream EA causes.
Workshop 5: The X-risks & longtermism session focused mainly on AI safety. We played the short film "Writing Doom" and gave discussion prompts. Watching a video provided good structural variety while succinctly communicating common objections to AI safety. One participant complimented our courage to address AI safety frankly and directly.
Workshop 6: In the career workshop, we ran through main points from 80,000 Hours' curriculum.
The Sunday wrap-up guided participants to think about next steps, introducing community events, the upcoming EAGx conference, and a reading group targeted at crash course graduates.
20 people completed the program (though 34 signed up initially). In terms of retention, it performed similarly to our fall Intro Program.
Graduates gave an average of 8/10 for lesson clarity and estimated a 75% likelihood of learning more about EA in the next 6 months. Seven graduates signed up for career advising, reading groups, or other EA events within a month. Participants rated welcomingness at 8.73/10 and gave an 80% positive response to interest in a casual reunion.
As with the intro program, it is important that there is a clear next step after completing the crash course to support participants’ EA journey. For the intro program we’ve organised a post program event, but that wouldn’t fit as well for the crash course. In Helsinki, where the biggest cohort was, our volunteers organised a reading group for the book “The Precipice”, which 5/12 graduates joined. For the other groups, there weren’t sufficient participants to do the same. For Helsinki, this was a significantly higher engagement post program than for the multi-week intro programs for the past couple of years, which indicates that our goal to make the crash course spark curiosity to learn more about EA worked out.
Students proved much more receptive than working professionals—they're more energetic, curious, social, and idealistic. The crash course seemed to energize participants more than our traditional program, though it's hard to make direct comparisons. The materials were more diverse, including videos, games, exercises and presentations, which helped maintain engagement.
Social Connection: The starting session should be especially interactive to get people into a participating mode. We should have added participants to a group chat and encouraged them to schedule follow-up conversations while present in-person.
Marketing: We need more lead time for promotion across multiple channels. Now we had only 3 weeks marketing time for the first crash course. Our Meta advertisements yielded no sign-ups, since we started them only a week before the event. Referrals from friends and posters on student dorm doors proved most effective.
| “Where did you hear about this course? (Select all that apply.)” | ||
| Friend: | 9 | 39% |
| Poster: | 7 | 30% |
| Telegram: | 4 | 17% |
| Email: | 3 | 13% |
| Kide app: | 3 | 13% |
| street marketer: | 1 | 4% |
| local event listing: | 1 | 4% |
| Instagram: | 1 | 4% |
| What’sApp: | 1 | 4% |
| 1 source: 16 | 16 | |
| 2 sources: | 7 | poster and friend or Telegram |
| 3 sources: 0 | 0 | |
| Total 23 responders from 3 Crash Courses |
The total cost across 3 weekend courses was approximately €2,300, including venue reservations (€733), food (€983), and marketing (€588). Future iterations could run much cheaper using free venues and more targeted marketing approaches.
The whole crash course project required 360 paid working hours plus volunteer time. Now when the materials and methods are created, the efforts may mostly concentrate in one intense week rather than spread over months like the Intro Program. Local organizers were notably less enthusiastic about running the crash course than the traditional fellowship which we have run since 2021. When asked to rate their willingness on a 10-point scale, organizers averaged 5.5 for the crash course versus 8.5 for the intro program.
Key concerns included the higher upfront effort required for an unfamiliar format, the sacrifice of personal weekend time, increased logistical overhead (food, venue reservations, marketing), and the need for larger participant numbers to justify the investment. Organizers also valued the deeper relationships and peer-to-peer dynamics possible in smaller reading groups, noting that the intro program better models how EAs actually interact in community settings. The familiarity with existing intro program routines made it feel less stressful to facilitate.
The crash course provides lower information density but higher accessibility and participation. The Intro Program gives higher quality understanding but faces higher dropout rates due to the longer commitment. We might tentatively recommend the crash course for groups needing rapid growth or at risk of dying out.
The crash course serves as both an awareness-spreading tool and a way to welcome people to the community. Rather than funneling people into the Intro Program, it leads directly to reading groups or other community engagement. The format may be ideal for spring terms when traditional programs struggle with participation.
For questions, slides, workshops, and other materials, please contact Sarah Bluhm or Iska Knuuttila on the Forum, or send mail to [email protected]
